ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Measuring Treatment Adherence in Myopia Control: Current Practices and Future Directions.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of table tennis on vision in children and adolescents: a multilevel dose-response meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of combining peripheral defocus spectacle lens wear with 0.01% atropine.Annals of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Developmental trajectories of visual acuity and associated determinants in Chinese primary school students: a longitudinal cohort study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Topic: Treatment adherence is an essential consideration for both health providers and researchers evaluating the effectiveness of treatments of progressive childhood myopia. This narrative review provides an overview of methods used to measure treatment adherence and examines how adherence has been assessed in myopia control studies. Clinical Relevance: Despite its importance, adherence has not been consistently measured or reported in myopia control trials, limiting the reliability of conclusions regarding treatment efficacy, dose relationships, and safety. Examining current approaches and highlighting methodological trends and gaps will inform future research. Methods: Exploratory searches of literature were undertaken to identify relevant studies conducted between 2014 and 2024. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) reported on treatment adherence outcomes, (2) involved pediatric populations, and (3) evaluated a myopia control intervention. Reference lists of included articles were scanned to identify additional relevant studies. Results: In the context of research in myopia control interventions, direct measures of adherence are often impractical and largely dependent on the intervention being examined. This has led to inconsistent reporting of adherence outcomes across studies. Consequently, most studies to date have relied on indirect methods, particularly self-reported data, because of the limited availability of reliable electronic monitoring tools and the inaccuracy or inappropriateness of dosage counts. Conclusions: It is recommended that researchers prioritize treatment adherence as a key outcome and select context-appropriate methods that minimize bias and error. Optimal measurement of adherence outcomes will support more robust analyses of treatment dose-response relationships and ultimately inform the clinical care of myopic patients. Financial Disclosures: The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.